Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-01-2013, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Mr 100% Certainty,

Mr. 100% Desperate

spin · 10-01-2013, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Denialism

Technically there's middle ground somewhere. Where?

In most fields of study, you would set up a controlled experiment to test your different hypotheses. It's hard to do that in ancient history ....

A C14 test on the Dura Parchment 24 would not be hard to perform and obviously represents an INDEPENDENT controlled experiment related to the dating of DF24. But I cant see this happening. The problem appears to be one of overcoming the resistance of those who think that such an independent test is not required, since they already ascribe a 100% certitude to the terminus ad quem of DF24 via the archaeological report.

The closed archaeological context renders the less accurate C14 testing of little value.

///

Again with this banally mindless 100% nonsense.

Mr 100% Certainty,

:hysterical:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In this case the C14 represents an independent professional check on the date of the fragment.

Well, stop uselessly shooting your mouth off and go and make a case to Yale as to why an artefact found in a closed archaeological context should be subjected to C14 testing, oh and try and get funding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If the C14 result were to be something like 350 CE plus or minus 60 years it would present a paradox that Dura Fragment 24 was buried under the wall a century before its papyrus was harvested.

Just because you have nothing to show for the time you have wasted on this nonsense for the last several years, do you have to bleed in front of the whole forum that you have no evidence whatsoever and the best you can do for all the effort you've spent is to whinge about no C14 dating, when there is no need for it?

spin · 10-01-2013, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Mr 100% Certainty,

Mr. 100% Desperate

Maybe... but certainly

Mr 100% Waffle.

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It was found in the embankment according to the archaeologist running the excavation at the time of discovery, Hopkins p.107

Hopkins essentially relies on the hearsay of his workmen.

He did not witness the fragment being unearthed.
His wife (or someone else) "found it in a basket".

Perhaps there was a conspiracy by the Syrian workman on the site in March 1933 to supply a fake fragment of a christian document to the gullible foreigners.

You need a financial angle ..... Perhaps the Syrian workman learnt that the dig was suffering from financial support and excavations were scheduled to be closed down, so they were looking at ways for their digging to become successful, and a genuine fragment found at the rubbish tip outside the Palmyrene Gate was suddenly "found" buried in the excavations of the embankment.

I still think a 90% security of the terminus ad quem dating of DF24 (via burial mid 3rd century) is quite generous, but that's where I am at.

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let me ask you yet again: where did the ΙΗ come from???

It came from whoever it was that implemented the nomina sacra codes in either the Four Gospels or the One Gospel, which occurred, with a 90% certainty, prior to the mid 3rd century.

spin · 10-01-2013, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It was found in the embankment according to the archaeologist running the excavation at the time of discovery, Hopkins p.107

Hopkins essentially relies on the hearsay of his workmen.

He did not witness the fragment being unearthed.
His wife (or someone else) "found it in a basket".

Perhaps there was a conspiracy by the Syrian workman on the site in March 1933 to supply a fake fragment of a christian document to the gullible foreigners.

You need a financial angle ..... Perhaps the Syrian workman learnt that the dig was suffering from financial support and excavations were scheduled to be closed down, so they were looking at ways for their digging to become successful, and a genuine fragment found at the rubbish tip outside the Palmyrene Gate was suddenly "found" buried in the excavations of the embankment.

Think about selling the rights to the story?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I still think a 90% security of the terminus ad quem dating of DF24 (via burial mid 3rd century) is quite generous, but that's where I am at.

Congratulations.

spin · 10-01-2013, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let me ask you yet again: where did the ΙΗ come from???

It came from whoever it was that implemented the nomina sacra codes in either the Four Gospels or the One Gospel, which occurred, with a 90% certainty, prior to the mid 3rd century.

That is, you don't know and cannot provide a tangible possibility to support your quibbling.

stephan huller · 10-01-2013, 10:06 PM

Since you are a person who has been pushing an unreasonably hypothesis for the last ten years, investing an incalculable amount of energy spamming forums such as this one, to get you - a propagandist of nonsense who rivals Goebbels in terms of your ability to exaggerate and misrepresent the truth - I will take your 90% as representing 100% to any reasonable objective person.

Case closed.

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I still think a 90% security of the terminus ad quem dating of DF24 (via burial mid 3rd century) is quite generous, but that's where I am at.

Congratulations.

And you're still holding out for 100% I take it.

Congratulations on your certitude.

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let me ask you yet again: where did the ΙΗ come from???

It came from whoever it was that implemented the nomina sacra codes in either the Four Gospels or the One Gospel, which occurred, with a 90% certainty, prior to the mid 3rd century.

That is, you don't know and cannot provide a tangible possibility to support your quibbling.

Mainstream have no tangible theory for who implemented the nomina sacra, so why are you asking me and expecting me to provide the answer?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2013, 10:06 PM	#208
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Since you are a person who has been pushing an unreasonably hypothesis for the last ten years, investing an incalculable amount of energy spamming forums such as this one, to get you - a propagandist of nonsense who rivals Goebbels in terms of your ability to exaggerate and misrepresent the truth - I will take your 90% as representing 100% to any reasonable objective person. Case closed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.